Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernelIR system?

[Gerd Hoffmann]

On 11/30/09 13:34, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Christoph Bartelmus wrote:
> > Hi Mauro,
> >
> > I just don't want to change a working interface just because it could be
> > also implemented in a different way, but having no other visible advantage
> > than using more recent kernel features.
>
> I agree. The main reasons to review the interface is:
> 	1) to avoid any overlaps (if are there any) with the evdev interface;

Use lirc for raw samples.
Use evdev for decoded data.

Hardware/drivers which can handle both can support both interfaces.

IMHO it makes no sense at all to squeeze raw samples through the input 
layer.  It looks more like a serial line than a input device.  In fact 
you can homebrew a receiver and connect it to the serial port, which was 
quite common in pre-usb-ir-receiver times.

> 	2) to have it stable enough to be used, without changes, for a long
> 	   time.

It isn't like lirc is a new interface.  It has been used in practice for 
years.  I don't think API stability is a problem here.

> True, but even if we want to merge lirc drivers "as-is", the drivers will
> still need changes, due to kernel CodingStyle, due to the usage of some API's
> that may be deprecated, due to some breakage with non-Intel architectures, due
> to some bugs that kernel hackers may discover, etc.

I assumed this did happen in already in preparation of this submission?

cheers,
  Gerd

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/